
It was sweet. Until it was bitter. Then we spit it out. And still we live.
LAST week, if you wanted to use the latest slang to tell a friend he was cool, you could have called him “Obama,” as in: “Dude, you’re rocking the new Pre phone? You are so Obama.”Yeesh. If you risked it before, go ahead: risk it! You seem pretty un-risk-averse. Chez Althouse, we've been thinking it's amusing to say, whenever anything's not quite right: Why did Obama let that happen? Or just — with a tone of sad disappointment: Obama.
This week? Best not to risk it.
The life of slang is now shorter than ever, say linguists, and what was once a reliable code for identifying members of an in-group or subculture is losing some of its magic.... whose slang credentials include being a founding member of the doo-wop group Sha Na Na... Ha ha. I like to think his linguistics scholarship focuses on the meaning of nonsense syllables in doo wop songs. (Because, really, WHO put the bomp?)
The Internet “is robbing slang of a lot of its sociolinguistic exclusionary power,” said Robert A. Leonard, a linguistics professor at Hofstra in Hempstead, N.Y., whose slang credentials include being a founding member of the doo-wop group Sha Na Na, formed in the late 1960s. “If you are in a real inside group, you are manufacturing slang so that you can exclude the wannabes.”
And that becomes harder, he added, as the whole world has access to your language.
No real definition for this word is possible at this time. Check back in 4 years by then a consensus by have formed. Each person projects his personal beliefs and values onto this word, and a standard meaning isn't possible at this time.Hey, did it suddenly become hip and cool to be all clear-headed and rational?!
The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact....
“Conservatives are always good at pushing that one concise message. The death panels are easy to tweet. The explanation for why there are no death panels and making that explanation takes much more explanation. You can’t do that on Twitter.”So their ideas are sophisticated and fact-based, while their opponents throw around ideology and the fantasy that supports it. That's the politico's delusion, in a nutshell. But I've got to laugh at the way blogging now represents the in-depth development of ideas. I'm just too deep for Twitter. I'm a blogger. LOL.
The pseudoscientist ... can say whatever he wants. If compelling rhetoric would benefit from any given argument, he can always make that argument. Pseudosciences have typically been designed around compelling rhetorical arguments. The facts of science, on the other hand, rarely happen to coincide with the best possible logic argument. Having the facts on your side is not an advantage, it's a limitation; and it's a limitation that's very dangerous to the cause of science should you throw it onto the debate floor.
The tactics -- which one official described Friday as a threatened execution -- were used on Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, according to the CIA's inspector general's report on the agency's interrogation program....
Three months before Nashiri's capture, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel -- Jay S. Bybee, now a federal judge -- advised the CIA in an August 2002 memo that threats of "imminent death" were not illegal unless they deliberately produced prolonged mental harm. Independent legal experts have called that interpretation too hedged and thus too lax....
A ... former U.S. official who has read the full, classified report said that it contained an entire section listing ways in which the CIA and contracted interrogators had "gone beyond what they were authorized to do -- a whole variety of deviations." The official said that what struck him most strongly was that the report suggested these techniques were "really not effective."
He said he concluded that "there has to be a better way to do this" but that the CIA resisted suggestions then that it should back away from the program. Asked why, the official said he could not say for sure, but he added that "maybe it was that if you change, then it means you were wrong" in pursuing the harsh interrogation methods in the first place.
***
You just call on a clam,
And you know wherever I am
I will squirt you, oh yeah baby
Right in the face.
Just take a walk on the beach,
I will you a lesson teach.
I will squirt you, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You've got a clam.
Hey, ain't it good to know that you've got a clam?
People can be so cold.
They'll hurt you and desert you.
They'll take your soul if you let them.
Oh, but don't you let them...

"Under no circumstance was Tom Ridge or anyone else directed to change the threat level... It didn’t work that way, and it certainly didn’t work that way in 2004. It was always an apolitical process."Ridge "felt pressured." They didn't "direct." Everybody could be telling the (half) truth.
"We have been in contact with the Scottish government indicating that we objected to it," President Barack Obama said of Thursday's release.Indicating that we objected... Let me indicate that I find Barack Obama infuriatingly bland. Has he ever showed passion (this purveyor of empathy) – has he ever showed staunch resolve in the war on terror?
"We thought it was a mistake. We are now in contact with the Libyan government, and want to make sure that if in fact this transfer has taken place, he is not welcomed back in some way but instead should be under house arrest...."
The credibility of Barack Obama’s influence on the world is going to take at least as hard a knock. In the end, all the protests and all the diplomatic pressure from the White House counted for nothing. Scotland’s determination to return Megrahi to the bosom of his family and his homeland was not going to be blocked.
The rehabilitation of America’s standing in the world was going to be one of the great gains, if you remember, of the Obama election victory.... The President and his Secretary of State could do nothing - for all their administration’s supposed global prestige - to prevent what they considered to be an outrage. On yet another score, Mr Obama could not deliver the goods.

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,” Mr. Obama told a multidenominational group of pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders who support his goal to remake the nation’s health care system.Bearing false witness? Breaking the 9th Commandment? So his opponents are sinners. I'm trying to imagine the separation-of-church-and-state freakout if George Bush had taken this approach to arguing for one of his policies.
President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.Strangely, the context of that quote — "a core ethical and moral obligation" — is missing from the body of the article. Was something cut? Was it too embarrassing? Too Bush-y? I have to go elsewhere:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: OK, for some, that public option has gone over like a lead balloon. So how about plan B, morality? Is that the secret weapon strategy to get health care reform? President Obama went on a conference call today with thousands of religious people, arguing health care reform is a moral issue. The president also argued against what he calls "ludicrous lies" made up about his health plan.Now, we know that Barack Obama doesn't "keep" his actual brother — we remember George Hussein Onyango Obama, the brother who lives a hut — and it's clear that what he means is that government has the moral obligation to regard all citizens as brothers and sisters — I'm coining the word sibizens — and to care for them.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.
Mr. Obama called on the religious leaders to help him share the good word about health care reform and set the record straight.Sharing the "good word"? Good Lord! Is this the Gospel? Mark 16:
“I need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors. I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth,” he said.
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.Obama says believe. Believe or be condemned as sinners. And go forth into the world. Preach the good news. Speak the truth.
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."Talk about the blue pill! Just wait until the government lays its hands on you. In Barack's name, you will get well.
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to [Rabbi Jack] Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."
"You want me to talk about it or do you want to yell?" he asked over and over when interrupted while trying to answer. Continued shouting brought a sterner rebuke.Ha ha. I love hearing Frank voice his confusion about whether people are accepting his answers as serious efforts at fully answering the questions. He doesn't know if they hate his actual answers or if they know he's not really answering. I'm guessing he knows he's not fully answering, and he knows they hate his partial answers, and he's trying to calculate whether giving full answers would get a better result. On the one hand, they'd be full answers, but on the other hand, they'd be there presenting a big target for the crowd's contempt.
"Disruption never helps your cause," he said more than once. "It just looks like you're afraid to have rational discussion."...
"What's the matter with you all?" he said. "I don't know if you get angrier when I answer the questions, or when you don't think I do."
I think most people's clothes don't fit. I'm always bewildered. I'm like, "Do people ever look at themselves in the three-way mirror? Like, did you see what your ass looks like?" Americans get hung up on the actual size tag.

As a regular reader of your blog...I'll bet.
... I was disappointed...Oh? You had such hopes for me, didn't you?
... when you attributed the post "Whole Food Boycott Picks Up Steam" to TMV writers. Editor-in-chief regularly posts "Guest Voice" posts on the site.Well, then editor-in-chief must have thought he had something that fit in the place he calls The Moderate Voice.
The post was clearly identified as a Guest Voice and not a regular TMV contributor. Mr. Gandelman likes posting "Guest Voices" to stir the pot, if you will (Michael Reagan has been posted many times as a "Guest Voice").To stir the pot, if you will... (What if I won't?) Stirring the pot is consistent with voice moderation? It's fine if "Mr. Gandelman" does whatever he likes, but I like saying when the name of a blog doesn't fit with what goes on under that name.... whether you will or not.
The Moderate Voice as [sic] many writers. Some conservative and some liberal. We don't hold writers [sic] feet to the fire but there have [sic] been a larger percentage of the liberal viewpoint rather than the conservative viewpoint recently. This is simply due to conservative writers not posting as much. So the site does tilt but it isn't an intentional thing. But that is regarding the regular writers, not "Guest Voices".It's not my job to monitor your site, but my impression is that it leans left, as I think you are conceding. But I don't care about that. I was talking about moderation of the voice, and the way saying someone "shot his company in the face" is not a moderate way to speak.
In the future, if you could, please distinguish between "Guest Voices" and regular writers at The Moderate Voice?No. If you put up a post, it's part of your blog. It's under the name "The Moderate Voice," and if I want to say a post on that blog is inconsistent with the name of the blog, I will say just that — and I'll give you a link. If you want some disclaimer, put it where you want on your blog, as big as you want it. I'm not cluttering my posts with hedging that doesn't mean anything to me. I linked. That's what I give you.
I think it would be beneficial to all bloggers to be very clear who they are agreeing or disagreeing with so their aren't any misunderstandings.I'll be the judge of what's beneficial to me and my readers. If you don't want a writer associated with the name of your blog, don't let them post on your blog. The details of which writers you're vouching for and which are there to "stir the pot" are your business, not mine. I linked. That's the blogging ethic, in my view. My readers click on the link and can see what I'm talking about. If you haven't made it clear, you fix it.
Thank you very much and keep up the great writing!Oh, ridiculous. You give a damn about my writing?
Tyrone Steels IIOkay, why is the
Chief Technology Officer
ENXIT Group, LLC " Equity Opportunity For The New Century"......
Office: (678) 701-XXXX
Fax: (678) 954-XXXX
tyrone.steels@XXXX.com
URL: www.enxit.com
Enx·it [eng-zit, enk-sit]So... they don't know if they are coming or going? (Like this?)
1. An act of entering
2. A way or passage out
3. A combination of entrance and exit point(s).
The Enxit Group L.L.C. was created out of a group of ideas formulated at the virtual consortium SEMTAN Media in late 2005. The theme of Enxit was developed around a requirement to incorporate flexibility into a commerce model and endeavor which could identify and manage opportunities employing technological antecedents to improve efficiency. The Enxit Group is deigned to be facilitate PEST [political, economic, socio-cultural, and technological] antecedents which are rapidly integrating our global society, creating equity for all participants.And I am deigned to be damned if I know what the hell you are talking about, but.... thank you very much and keep up the great writing!
It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.Conversations! Damn! As if the government does not have power! Oh, but it's "not determinative," you say. It's just "some guidance." He said that, see? Ugh! Spare me! We're right to be afraid now, while the man is burbling about conversation. You know damned well he's about to say and now the time for conversation is over, and we must pass legislation. Before, he was all quick, shut up, it's an emergency, pass the legislation. People freaked, so then he deemed the period of freakage part of the conversation, and there, it has occurred, and now: shut up, pass the legislation. Oh, yeah, here it is, in today's NYT, an op-ed by Barack Obama:
Our nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them....It's "debate" now, not "conversation," because the wrong people are doing the talking. The real conversation is what those people who aren't talking would say.
The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.Okay! Let's pick it all apart and examine everything. Have you read the great WSJ op-ed by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey? He had some serious ideas on some real issues, but wait, how dare he speak! How dare he get in the way of the Democrats' ramming legislation through Congress. The Democrats know what the millions upon millions of silent Americans really think, so he and those other loud voices need to quiet down, right? That's what I call conversation — when everyone shuts up and lets me give them what they'd say they want if only they weren't so silent.
But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.
In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing....Why isn't doing the wrong thing a lot scarier than doing nothing? Don't we need to be careful and get it right? If I say that, am I a "cynic" or a "naysayer"? And don't cynics and naysayers belong in the conversation too? Obama's answer is, apparently, no, they are not the real Americans. The real Americans are silent, and I represent what they think.
In the end, this isn’t about politics.Oh, come on! But this post is already too long, and it's about the rhetorical use of "conversation." "This isn’t about politics" is at least as common and at least as disingenuous, but we'll have to have our conversation about this isn’t about politics some other day.
I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation -- with you, with America. Because we all need to be part of the discussion... And let's definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care.... So let's talk. Let's chat. Let's start a dialogue about your ideas and mine.... So let the conversation begin. I have a feeling it's going to be very interesting....Ha ha. Yeah, it was interesting. We sure enjoyed chatting with you. Now, what does your husband think? Oh, yes, he was all about conversation too:
Over the coming year I want to lead the American people in a great and unprecedented conversation about race... We have talked at each other and about each other for a long time. It's high time we all began talking with each other....I'm sure you enjoyed that chat... which is still going on....
Yesterday Paul Krugman reminded us that preferring Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton because you wanted to avoid the Clinton psychodrama of the 90s was always a vain hope. Back in early 2008 he wrote, "Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false." Ezra Klein, chatting online about town hall hysteria, added, "This is how the conservative movement organizes against major pieces of liberal legislation. It's not about a particular moment or leader."This is all very interesting, but I'd just like to add one thing. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama presented himself as someone who could bring us into a new era of transcendence over partisan differences. There would be Hope and Change. Obama believed — and a lot of us believed — that he was a calm, reassuring figure whom we could all love and trust.
This is unquestionably true, but I'd just like to add one thing. If Hillary Clinton had won last year's Democratic primary and gone on to become president, and then this year's town hall meeting had turned into insane gatherings of lunatics yelling about death panels, every single pundit in Washington — Every. Single. One. — would be blaming it on her. Their unanimous take would be: Democrats knew that she was a divisive figure and chose to put her in the White House anyway. It's hardly any wonder that conservatives have gone nuts, is it?
That narrative, as we now know, would have been 100% wrong. But that would have been the narrative anyway. Caveat lector.

Would you look at him? Sittin' there with his hooter scrapin' away at that book!Link.
Well, what's the matter with that?
Have you no natural resources of your own? Have they even robbed you of that?
You can learn from books!
You can, can you? Pahh! Sheeps' heads! You could learn more by gettin' out there and living!
Out where?
Any old where! But not our little Richard. Oh, no. When you're not thumpin' them pagan skins you're tormenting your eyes with that rubbish.
Books are good.
*Parading's* better.
Parading?
Parading the streets! Trailing your coat! Bowling along! LIVING!
Well, I am living.
You? Living? When was the last time you gave a girl a pink-edged daisy? When did you last embarrass a sheila with your cool, appraising stare?
You're a bit old for that sort of chat, aren't you?
Well at least I've got a backlog of memories! All you've got is - THAT BOOK!
