No, it’s not the sequel to Robert W. Chambers’ 1895 horror book The King in Yellow. It is a series of posters in Italy of Adolf Hitler, clad in a pink uniform. This is being done to advertise a line of clothing.
I really have to wonder what the meeting where they dreamed this up was like. I mean, seriously, how could anybody talk about this for any length of time and think it was a good idea?
This whole oil spill thing gets worse all the time, and they just noticed some “huge oil plumes“.
What I want to know is: What is the worst case scenario here? What is the maximum amount of oil which can possibly spill into the Gulf from this? So far, I’ve found this:
“The spill, currently spewing 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) of sweet crude oil into the Gulf every day, could grow up to 12 times the rate of current low-end estimates.Rates that high would cause an already disastrous scenario to become a truly catastrophic event.”
But I’m having trouble figuring out what that means, or what the difference is between a disaster and a catastrophe.
Not impressive. (Hat Tip to Private Buffoon.)
As if the fact that it has been an utter failure weren’t bad enough, the war on drugs also actively causes things like this to happen.
This is bizarre. He claims to have been doing this for 70 years.
I assume that it’s some sort of hoax, though it’s hard to see how he’s pulling it off.
On the other hand, if it isn’t a hoax and everyone learned how to do it, the decrease in demand for food would probably cripple the economy, so I figure the Indian government will probably hush it all up,send the guy somewhere secret, and hide all the relevant studies in a giant warehouse; like at the end of the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark.
An amusing story; and the classic headline: “Paris To Permit Women To Wear Pants“. (As opposed to making them wear skirts and dresses, I think.)
In other French news, Sarkozy and his wife apparently have some time management issues… or not.
The Supreme Court rules that videos of animal cruelty are protected by free speech:
“The ruling means that animal cruelty won’t be added to obscenity, fraud and the handful of other categories of constitutionally unprotected speech.”
(Italics mine.)
What do you think? Have they literally “screwed the pooch”?
Like I said, Libertarians must be thinking “Where the hell have you been? You’re only realizing this stuff now?”
Apparently, President Obama gave a 17-minute answer in response to the question: “In the economy (sic) times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care, because it — we are over-taxed as it is?”
First of all, I should point out that it’s sort of a moot point; obviously, Obama does think it’s wise, or else he wouldn’t have done it.
Secondly, Obama did basically answer the question; in that he said what the problems the bill addressed were. In so doing, he essentially laid out for the listeners to decide whether it was wise or not.
Thirdly, it is very difficult to assess what “over-taxed” means. Is it an economically measureable phenomenon? Is it “over-taxed” in the sense that the government gets less revenue with higher tax rates, as Arthur Laffer thought? Or over-taxed in the sense of taxes that make people move to other countries to keep more of their money, hence strangling innovation? Either way, it’s hard to say if we’re over-taxed or not.
On the other hand, if we’re talking about “over-taxed” as a moral issue (because some say it is not only inefficient but immoral for the government to tax at high rates), then the situation is utterly irresolvable, because–and I suspect this is the case–Obama and his questioner have fundamentally different moral outlooks on this issue.
Lastly, I’m pretty sure what Obama was trying to say without actually saying it was: “Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the debt and deficit. This is going to happen no matter what. If you think you’re over-taxed now, well…”
Following Biden’s remarks on the health care bill, President Obama reportedly decided that enough was enough, and that the time had come to replace the Vice-President with someone with more gravitas. Dick Cheney came readily to mind as the leading candidate.
Most political observers deemed the move “brilliant”, saying the combination would produce a super-popular team that would unite a divided country.
Full story here.
