Representative Michael Grimm (R-NY) has become the first GOP member of Congress in recent memory to flip from denying the science of man-made climate change climate to accepting it. He does so on this Sunday evening's broadcast of Episode 3 of Showtime's acclaimed docu-series, "Years of Living Dangerously."

Stop whining, Mr. President.

And stop whiffing.

Don't whinge off the record with columnists and definitely don't do it at a press conference with another world leader. It is disorienting to everybody, here at home and around the world.

I empathize with you about being thin-skinned. When you hate being criticized, it's hard to take a giant steaming plate of "you stink" every day, coming from all sides. But you convey the sense that any difference on substance is lèse-majesté.

You simply proclaim what you believe as though you know it to be absolutely true, hoping we recognize the truth of it, and, if we don't, then we've disappointed you again.

SNIP

It doesn't feel like leadership. It doesn't feel like you're in command of your world.

How can we accept these reduced expectations and truculent passivity from the man who offered himself up as the moral beacon of the world, even before he was elected?

SNIP

Mr. President, don't you know that we're speeched out? It's not what we need right now.

If you're looking to hide a barn in plain sight, here's a fool-proof way to go about: cover it in mylar. That's what New York City architecture firm stpmj did for a new conceptual project for the Architectural League's Folly Competition.

Accused of perpetrating a "profound evil," former Pennsylvania judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. has been sentenced to 28 years in prison for illegally accepting money from a juvenile-prison developer while he spent years incarcerating thousands of young people.

Prosecutors said Ciavarella sent juveniles to jail as part of a "kids for cash" scheme involving Robert Mericle, builder of the PA and Western PA Child Care juvenile detention centers. The ex-judge was convicted in February of 12 counts that included racketeering, money laundering, mail fraud and tax evasion.

In addition to his prison sentence, Ciavarella was ordered to pay nearly $1.2 million in restitution.

At his sentencing, Ciavarella acknowledged his illegal acceptance of money from Mericle. But he denied ever jailing a juvenile in exchange for money.

---

In the section of Scalia's dissent entitled Plus Ca Change. EPA's Continuing Quest for Cost Effects Regulation (an apparent cutesy attempt belittling the EPA--the start of the more things change the more they stay the same), Scalia stated that the EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulations, and cited Whitman v American Trucking, a Supreme Court ruling in 200l , that confronted EPA's contention that it could consider costs in setting standards.

However, the EPA's position in the earlier case cited was just the opposite--the EPA was defending its refusal to consider costs as a counterweight to health benefits when setting air quality standards.  In fact, it was the Trucking Association that wanted EPA to factor in costs. The Court ruled in favor of the EPA unanimously.  

And, the author of that 9 to 0 ruling was Scalia.  

Case in point - she cites random polls, without links - and then claim that those polls are  the only reality, without putting them in context - such as completely disregarding other polls she doesn't like.

Basically, what she does is if she doesn't like the source, she does the equivalent of putting her fingers in her ears and saying, "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you."

Case in point: "articles that primarily support one's pov" described as "a dodge from taking responsibility personally."

Not only have you managed to equate/conflate the nature of the links jb has sometimes provided with her support of the conservative agenda, you've managed to call her lazy, too.  But given your preference for pure expressions of opinion, how is it that you can refuse, time and again, to ignore jb's own words, the ones where she is expressing her own views, and keep using the existence of the link or excerpt to more or less call her a liar?  You say you don't like all the linkage, but you sure manage to make use of it - not for purposes of discussing the content, but for attacking someone's character.  

The bonus is that, since you don't generally provide any links to anything, then by extension - en extension you set up to knock jb - your comments are elevated to being stand-alone marvels of personal responsibility.  Oh, what a truly wonderful person you are!

The problem is, Christine, that you don't just express opinions; you express what you believe are facts, and never provide any support for them.  Even the polls you referred to - where are the links to those, the links that would let people look under the surface, see the questions, look at the demographics?  I find it interesting that you want others to take personal responsibility for what they post, but don't feel much compunction to hold yourself to the same standard.  Of course, we could all go off to the google and try to find the polls ourselves, but isn't it there a level of laziness or disingenuousness in making others do what should be your work for you?

Ethan Hawke said in 2013 that Boyhood is

...also known as "The Twelve Year Project"; Richard Linklater and I have made a short film every year for the last 11 years, one more to go, that follows the development of a young boy from age 6 to 18. I play the father, and it's Tolstoy-esque in scope. I thought the Before series was the most unique thing I would ever be a part of, but Rick has engaged me in something even more strange. Doing a scene with a young boy at the age of 7 when he talks about why do raccoons die, and at the age of 12 when he talks about video games, and 17 when he asks me about girls, and have it be the same actor -- to watch his voice and body morph -- it's a little bit like timelapse photography of a human being. ... Next year, he will graduate high school and we will finish the film. It will probably come out in two years.

WikiFoods, Inc. has developed a revolutionary, plastic-free food and beverage packaging technology that delivers Triple Good. Called WikiPearls^TM, they're good for you, good for the environment, and just plain good.

Imagine for a second the skin of a grape or a coconut. WikiPearl skins are inspired by the way nature packages fruits and vegetables. These skins are delicious protective coatings against water loss and contaminant entry, and potential carriers of effective and functional nutrition.

v. 340
v. 339
v. 338
v. 337

Get your humpdays on, my friends. Hotter than hell here on the SF peninsula today, in the uninsulated house with no AC. Gonna be a sauna. All you can do is strip down and sweat it out. And you lose about five pounds in the process. It's really a win-win.

Ahem.

Prosecutors with the United States attorney's office are recommending that Judge Jesse M. Furman send Mr. Nahmad to prison for a year to 18 months.

But Mr. Nahmad's lawyers, Benjamin Brafman and Paul L. Shechtman, are asking that their client, a first-time offender, be permitted to avoid prison and instead operate a program that would bring young people living in a Bronx homeless shelter to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Mr. Nahmad would pay $100,000 a year to subsidize that program and would act as a teacher and chaperone for the children, the lawyers wrote in a memorandum to the judge.

NYT

High stakes poker and high end art world dealing, a vortex spinning alleged Russian mobsters, movie stars.. (diCaprio), and other colorful characters.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning Americans to stop using the Web browser Internet Explorer because it has a bug that could allow hackers to install malicious software without the user knowing it.

The ruling continues a string of wins for voting rights advocates across the country. Last week, a state court struck down Arkansas's voter ID law. And in January, a state judge in Pennsylvania struck down that state's voter ID law.

But this one could have even bigger implications if it stands. Never before has Section 2 of the VRA, which bars racial discrimination in voting, been used to strike down a voter ID law. Similar challenges, filed by the U.S. Justice Department, are currently pending against Texas's voter ID law and North Carolina's sweeping voting law, which includes a voter ID component.

Sometimes I link to columnists - sometimes to news stories, sometimes to polling outfits. I form an argument based on not just the articles or columns I post (I always double check those before I post - especially when a columnist is throwing in facts, in addition to spin, or when the source is one which is not favored around here).

But here's the thing about that - you don't.  For example - in your latest response, you throw out:

Today's WSJ/NBC poll shows the President rising--as did last week's CBS/NYTimes poll--both in contrast to the WashPo poll released yesterday.

Again - with no links, so I had to go and look.  You are correct - WSJ shows that he is "rising" since October.  

But not really.

Yes, I guess you could say he is "climbing" in the polls - from the very worst during the botched ACA rollout of double digit negatives, to now high single digit negative ratings. He has not been consisently "above water" (above 50%) and across polls in his approval rating since February of 2013. That is called "a trend".

I can understand that if you have a good faith discussion/debate going on with another commenter requesting a link may, sometimes, be helpful. But, I, like you, feel that if you're fairly well educated, and, reasonably well read regarding a particular subject the body of retained knowledge from your own mind should usually be sufficient.

For example, if we're having a discussion about WW 2, and, as part of the narrative I'm relaying to you, I state that the Japanese surrendered to us aboard the battleship USS Missouri, should I have included a link?

The only reason for the answer to be, "yes," is if you dispute my statement regarding the Missouri. And, even then, I think it would be more appropriate for you to "google" the answer as to which ship it was.

 My argument regarding links was a general statement. Of course, when items of fact are in dispute, links can be useful. But, my position that requiring links are way overdone, often unnecessary, and, should be required only when facts are in dispute, remains in place.
I don't think you and I are in disagreement, and, unless one looks into every nook and cranny of this discussion to try and find some tiny morsel that appears at odds with my general statement, as grown-ups, we're in accord.

v. 341
v. 340